Inaccurate Instructions and Interest on the Verdict: Takeaways from Johnson v. Advocate For the Medical Negligence Professional

In the landmark case of Johnson v. Advocate, critical issues surrounding jury instructions and prejudgment interest were brought to light, reshaping the landscape for medical malpractice defense in Illinois. The court’s decision emphasized the importance of accurately instructing juries on the sole proximate cause defense, a right long recognized in Illinois law. Additionally, the ruling clarified that high-low proposals made during deliberations do not qualify as settlement offers, preserving the potential for significant financial implications post-verdict. This case serves as a vital reminder for defense attorneys to strategically navigate complex legal challenges and protect their clients’ interests.